Names Searched Right Now:
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 5 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,709

    The Hundred Years Rule

    This has always confused me.

    We've all heard that it takes 100ish years for names to come back into fashion again which is why we're seeing a resurgence of Violets, Arthurs and Ivys. I see it everywhere, written like it is absolute fact: the Brians and Brendas will be next, then the Debbies and Grahams. But is there evidence for this occurring before our great-grandparents' generation or has this 'rule' come about just because people have started using vintage names in the last few years? If the latter, then how can the 100 year rule be a certainty when there's only one generation of name-recyclers as proof for it?

    From what I've gathered from years of doing genealogy, the most popular names were fairly static prior to the 19th century and I'm yet to find any evidence of the 100 year cycle before now. I'd love to see evidence if there is any though

    So, any thoughts on this rule? Do you know if it did exist years afore or is it a totally contemporary idea? And do you think it will hold true?


  2. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,709
    Ha, I guess nobody knows (or cares!) Ah well

  3. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Liverpool, England
    Posts
    4,457
    Sorry Copy and Paste, I didn't see this

    I think this is definitely a contemporary idea and I've never agreed with it anyway because, like you said, for a long long time the top fifty names were a pretty small and static pool. I can understand it from the point of view of middle names though as honour names are often of grandparents, so there may be a rise of kids whose middles names are Sharon and Brian.

    I guess we'll have to wait and see
    ~Boys~

    Jory Leander Atticus, August Eli Benedict, Casimir Mordecai Stewart,
    Edmond John Meirion, Horatio Ethell Emery, Bram William Jasper,
    Julian Remy Charles, Vasiliy Lochlan Michael.


    ~Girls~

    Aira Rose ___, Eleni Fiorella Charlotte, Sylvia Sayuri Noor,
    Merit Eleanora Adelaide, Clover Elodie Seraphine, Bridie Scarlett Viola,
    Marguerite Cecilia Iris, Eilidh Clara Valentine.


    Sorry to anyone who read TSI. First draft was terrible. Second drafting now.

  4. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    stereo kicks ay up.
    Posts
    4,582
    I definitely think it's tied to parents within the last 20 years. I went to school with Tabitha's, Cecilia's, Myra's and Helen's, all names that were more common with our grandparents and great grandparents, but nice enough when compared to the 6 Kaitlyn's (all various spellings of course! , Makayla's, Mackenzie's, Kylie's and Danielle's. I also know that, with my sister, my parents definitely considered great-grandparent's names for her - Lillian Charlotte was one, honouring a Lillian born in 1904, and a Wilfred Charles born in 1900. Although, my grandparents did use royal names, tied to their parents' generations. Maybe the further down the line we go, the further up the family tree we draw our names from?

    I'm not sure if it'll carry on our not, but, looking at when my generation (the 1990's kids) will be having children, within the next 5-10 years (if they haven't had them already), the names will be drawn from closer to the 1920's.

    While this is fine, I do have a slight issue with it - as I work/did work in child care, it's easier for me to grow sick of a name I constantly hear. Scarlett, Ava, Jack, Eddie, they're all vetoed for me, because of my '5 under 25 rule'. Unless in extreme circumstances regarding the name, I veto a name if I personally know 5 people with it under the age of 25. Quite a few of my top names are from the US top 100 from 1924, and, while I'd be delighted to meet a little Florence, or Evelyn, or Lillian, or Martha, I don't want to be meeting loads of them to the point where I get tired of names I like.


    So, while I do think it's occuring now, and I'm concerned it will continue (though maybe not in my area - I sort of live in the land of 'kre8tivly spelled names' - I know of not one, but TWO Irelynd's. Yes, Ire-lynd. And let's not forget Anjillina and Paetynne!) I've never seen any evidence that it's a trend, or that it will continue - except for a few minor things that may/may not prove anything.

    I feel like the person to ask would be the lovely Elea of British Baby Names for a UK POV on this.
    Ladies: Florence•Amelia•Daisy•Martha•Millie•Scar lett•Sophia•Poppy•Freya•Amelie•Maisie• Olivia•Charlotte•Imogen•Harriet
    Evie•Lillian•Isabelle•Ella•Louisa•Eleano r•Violet•Lucy•Annabelle•Phoebe•Elsie•M innie•Matilda•Grace•Evelyn•Pixie

    Gentlemen: Albert•Matthew•Henry•Louis•William•Harry •Teddy•James•Charlie•Christopher• Ernest•Andrew•Adam•Thomas•Alfie
    Edward•Archie•Daniel•Harrison•George•Sta nley•Joel•Rafferty•Michael•Samuel•Winsto n•Freddie•Darcy

  5. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,515
    Interesting idea and theories. I don't have one myself but will be following this thread with interest.
    ~Love names, literature, royals and horses~ <3

    Favourite names:
    Girls: Azalea, Cordelia, Elizabeth, Rosalind, Scarlett, Portia, Felicity, Juliet
    Boys: Fitzwilliam, Sebastian, Percival, Prospero, Orlando, Darcy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •